210

HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE

not only fully understood the value of the inductivemethod, but resolutely acted in accordance with it.Thus, Bacon cannot he said to have invented or con-structed the method to which modern science owes itsexistence. And later philosophers have not disclosed intheir methods any closer adherence to Bacon 's rules thanhis predecessors did. Newton, Boyle, Huygens , andtheir followers, have never alluded to the guidance ofthe “ prerogative instantiarum,” nor mentioned to whichclass their arguments were to be referred.

The remarks we before made will almost supply ananswer to these animadversions. We may, however,more completely reply by putting a parallel case. Wepossessed many eloquent writers in the English languagebefore an English Grammar was composed ; and sincethat, we boast many more who have neither writtenbetter English , nor, in every sentence, quoted the gram-matical rule by virtue of which that sentence was con-structed. Will it, therefore, be argued that grammar isuseless, or the man who first formed one entitled to nopraise ?

The “Novum Organon ” is the grammar of inductivephilosophy. Its principal merit lies, not in supplyingpractical rules, without a technical knowledge of whichno man could conduct a philosophical enquiry ; nor inteaching men the value or utility of the unfettered ap-peal to experiment: hut its main excellence consists inbringing into the form of a philosophical system thoseprinciples which, though already practically recognised,had not yet been viewed in their mutual connection anddependence; and in reducing to a scientific arrange-ment those scattered truths which were already approvedby the practice of the most cautious and judicious en-quirers into nature.

If, then, a philosopher of a subsequent age, conduct-ing his discoveries on inductive principles, should makeno especial mention of Bacon , and should state his ex-periments and describe his results, without explicitlytelling us whether they belong to the class of “ instantite